Porritt: CSR versus Sustainability

Recently Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is all the rage and the debate continues over how much corporations must do to be good corporate citizens. However, there is still a massive divide between companies that do 'good projects' and companies that understand and work towards sustainability.

I'd like to say we did a good job making the distinction in our research thesis on partnerships for sustainability but UK SD Commissioner Jonathon Porritt has really nailed it in an article featured in The Guardian last November:

Sustainability is central to Survival
Jonathan Porritt
Monday November 6, 2006
The Guardian

The Campaign Against Arms Trade was understandably incensed when BAE announced that it would be launching a new range of environment-friendly weapons, including "lead free" bullets, rockets with reduced toxins and grenades that produce less smoke. There have even been experiments to see if explosives can be converted into manure.

BAE executives may well believe they are "doing the right thing" in marginally reducing their environmental footprint while staying true to their particular business model: making as much money as possible flogging weapons of deadly destruction to whoever is prepared to buy them - legally, of course.

It is hard to imagine a better way of explaining the difference between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate sustainability.....

It's not enough simple to wear the badge of corporate responsibility. Business must accept that real change is the only response to the global crisis of sustianability. (read on...)

Nice one JP!

I decided to do a bit of digging to see what BAE say about Corporate Responsibility on their website. Here's just a few ideas

• Ensuring that our products are safe to use is a key responsibility - anyone see the irony?
• Lead used in ammunition can harm the environment and pose a risk to people. Our RO Defence site at Radway Green is developing lead-free ammunition which will be available in 2005.
• There have been concerns that the use of depleted uranium in weapons may cause harm - yes they are phasing it out but elsewhere on the site they mention they still make nuclear weapons.
  
• Contaminated land - of course it only matters at manufacturing sites, not where it products are used.
• They also talk of product stewardship but I suspect they aren't intending to take-back used ammunition for recycling?
• Community - they talk of investment and involvement in a community but there is no mention of the impact their products have on communities.
• Health and safety - Our employees and contractors in manufacturing are exposed to a range of safety risks, such as manual handling, working at height, noise, hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVs) and respiratory and skin irritation. We also handle explosives and nuclear energy that pose additional risks.
  
• They call themselves a 'responsible defence company'. Seems like they have a long way to go before they can focus on solutions to people's need for protection in ways other than bombs!